meta-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully lists expected return fields (name, category, namespace), but omits operational details such as authentication requirements, rate limiting, or whether this queries a cache vs live API.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous text. Every word serves a purpose: the verb specifies the action, 'Meta App' scopes the resource, and the parenthetical lists the specific data fields returned.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by listing the expected return fields. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what will be returned, though operational context would strengthen it further.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty. With no parameters requiring semantic clarification, the baseline score applies as per rubric guidelines for parameterless tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('Meta App basic information'), distinguishing it from the numerous Instagram/Threads content siblings by focusing on application metadata rather than media, comments, or posts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While the description implies usage context (retrieve app metadata), it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus the other Meta-specific tools like meta_debug_token or meta_exchange_token, or any prerequisites like authentication.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.